holden said:
It seems like you're trying to pick a fight
nope. just sharing information. got any?
The article you post is irrelevant to current XML-based plans for PG.
well, i guess that's a matter of opinion. i think it is relevant, in the sense that it talks about a bunch of much-hyped "solutions" which have not materialized, and now might _never_ come to fruition, including some that are counted on here.
The whole point of the article is that direct delivery of XML to users with stylesheets has not yet happened.
that's one of those "solutions", yes, but just one...
However, from what I've heard about current PG uses of XML, they tend towards using XML as a master format for storage
well yes, and as simon points out, that is a "fallback" position from the one that was originally staked, which was the serving of x.m.l. files. but even this fallback rings hollow here, since the position that x.m.l. is needed for _conversion_to_multiple_formats_ was always a tenuous one, in the sense that many entities out there are already doing mass conversion of p.g. e-texts, even though they aren't in x.m.l. format. further, the x.s.l.t. methodology that has always been the crucial linchpin in the "strategy" of x.m.l. advocates here is one of the ones that simon relegates to the past-tense. i find that interesting. and surely the examples of it that we have seen so far have shown it is badly lacking. add to the equation now that i'm showing, with real example-books, that z.m.l. can convert to multiple formats quite easily, on the user's desktop, via button-clicks, and the question becomes hard to avoid: what's the reason to apply heavy markup? don't get me wrong, i'm sure the hypesters will be able to invent one, they are creative that way, it's just that i think history should warn us to take these with a grain of salt...
On a slight side note, I don't see the point of your aggressive posts
first, my posts are not "aggressive". but if you _choose_ to interpret them that way, then i don't see _your_ point. wouldn't it be better just to skip them? why even bother reading them, holden? (let alone replying to them?) i mean, seriously, i could just as easily interpret _your_ posts as ad hominem, since you've said straight out that i am "trying to pick a fight" with "aggressive posts". but going down that road wouldn't be too productive, so i consciously choose not to; instead i have responded to your post with rebuttals that are on-topic and on-point, without diverting to attack your character. if you want a mud-fight or a flame-war, well i've shown i can do those things too; but why not friendly conversation instead? and don't get me wrong, i don't mean to be disingenuous here, because i fully understand that it's not pleasant to be on the losing side of a "you were wrong" comment. but that's the risk you take when you take a stand and you're wrong. but when someone is wrong, and you say they are wrong, that doesn't mean it's an "aggressive" post.
Everybody here should be (is?) aiming towards the furthering of PG's goals.
well yes, i believe that we all agree on that. the next issue is, "how do we obtain that?" on _that_ question, there is disagreement, which has been longstanding, and ugly too. and as much as some people might like to sweep this disagreement under the carpet, and have people forget what they said since things aren't looking too swell for their side, the disagreement still runs deep, and wide... meanwhile, little progress is being made on "the goals of p.g." that we all agree on... how long does t.e.i./x.m.l./whatever remain on the table as "the official plan" before it's required to show some action and results? how are "the goals of p.g." being served? those are questions i think you all should be asking yourselves. as for me, i'll just keep on plugging away with my little experiments, and maybe someday you'll realize that z.m.l. is best.
If whatever format you choose happens to preferred in the long run, that's not a reason for gloating.
well, i certainly will not be "gloating", because i don't see much point in that. however, it _is_ important to keep in mind whose predictions were wrong, and right, and whose credibility was badly shredded, for future reference... you know, fool me once, your fault, but fool me twice, my fault, right? so surely you can't mind if we evaluate those matters quite closely, can you? besides, in retrospect, my methodologies will be so _obvious_ that no one will even consider their "invention" to be _special_; that it was "controversial" will be laughable. luckily, i'll be able to point to lots and lots of messages that people posted to _this_ listserve as solid evidence that some people didn't get it. (which is why i spent so much time discussing it! y'all would have been a lot smarter to _fold_ your losing hand much earlier in this poker-game than you did, instead of constantly raising your bets...)
The other people on this list are merely trying to help PG as much as we all hope you are.
and i give them full credit on the variable of "trying". that doesn't mean i'm gonna start paying attention to what they say they see in their crystal ball though, because we've come to learn that it's badly cracked... -bowerbird